TY - JOUR T1 - Equity and expertise in the UN Food Systems Summit JF - BMJ Global Health JO - BMJ Global Health DO - 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006569 VL - 6 IS - 7 SP - e006569 AU - Nicholas Nisbett AU - Sharon Friel AU - Richmond Aryeetey AU - Fabio da Silva Gomes AU - Jody Harris AU - Kathryn Backholer AU - Phillip Baker AU - Valarie Blue Bird Jernigan AU - Sirinya Phulkerd Y1 - 2021/07/01 UR - http://gh.bmj.com/content/6/7/e006569.abstract N2 - Summary boxThe UN Food Systems Summit is bold but controversial, with important implications for global food systems and public health.Alongside claims of corporate capture, many have noted insufficient attention paid to human rights and to rebalancing power in the food system.These issues speak to wider issues of participation and equity in the summit itself. Narrow definitions of equity only consider income inequities in outcomes and coverage. Broader definitions consider why such inequities persevere and are interlinked via processes that can be historical and intergenerational.The summit’s science group is slanted in disciplinary expertise: it lacks sufficient expertise in equity, health, noncommunicable diseases or representatives with expertise in indigenous knowledge.It is not too late to rectify this in the summit structures, as we approach the September summit meeting.The UN Food Systems Summit is expected to launch bold new actions, solutions and strategies to deliver progress on all 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), each of which requires a transformation in the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food. However, the summit preparations have started controversially, with claims of corporate capture by prominent civil society groups,1 who, alongside the current and two former UN Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Food,2 have also noted insufficient attention paid to human rights and to rebalancing power in the food system itself.The issue of corporate capture is an important one for the summit. Early decisions to implement a clear set of rules on corporate participation and transparency were missed and need rectifying urgently for the summit to continue with any legitimacy, as the UN Special Rapporteurs and the scientists of a new boycott3 have pointed out. The summit has … ER -